There is nothing to GET TO regarding Kiev. I've already gotten to it in this topic. The reason you won't attack Kiev and everything else I make about Leese being on target is because you know I'm right. You have an agenda and you are nit-picking. You refuse to see the validity of my argument that one archaeological misinterpretation is insignificant to the other body of evidence proving that jewish ritual murder is a fact. Again, you are like the 9-11 people who focus on the pod theory and think you're looking at the biggest smoking gun to prove the point you're trying to prove. You know that what you're doing is by and large a red herring.

The overall point: Even if Leese's misinterpretation of archaeological data is incorrect, he is correct on many other points and these points are more pretinent to the issue of jewish ritual murder being factual.

More misdirection. I am talking about one thing and you bring something totally different. You have not responded to any of my points, you have simply raised others. Is this your idea of a discussion?

I am talking about LEESE, specifically, paragraph 3 in chapter 1. He is wrong. Why would I proceed until you acknowledge this fact? Why would I bother to discuss any other component of the book when you wont look at paragraph 3, review the documents I provided and then discuss whether or not Leese's points there are valid? Do you think I am going to waste more of my valuable time debunking some of his other statements of "fact" when you wont even look into the one I already claim?

I'm engaging in misdirection? How can I be when you are the one who opened the door for other aspects of Leese's booklets to be discussed? Read your words again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by warweaver
the premise of the book is false. It is certainly not educational because it is misleading, incorrect, poorly referenced and sometimes outright deceptive.

The entire book is composed of statements, usually unsupported by the historical record, just like these. Yet, the author would have us believe that his book is, "fact."

Look at what you said. THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE BOOK IS FALSE. You are saying that jewish ritual murder is a fantasy. Look at what else you said. You also said THE ENTIRE BOOK has statements that are USUALLY UNSUPPORTED BY THE HISTORICAL RECORD. You opened the door for everything else in Leese's to be discussed despite you pretending to only want to discuss one issue.

Let me make this clear for you. You said THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE BOOK IS FALSE meaning that jewish ritual murder is a fantasy. Now let's ignore how you shot yourself in the foot when you opened up the door by uttering statements that allowed everything else in Leese's book to be discussed and stick to the archaeological issue. HOW DOES THE PLACEMENT OF BURIAL JARS REFUTE ALL CASES AND ACCUSATIONS OF JEWISH RITUAL MURDER? The simple answer is it does not. So to get at the premise of the book, we have to look at other things...these other things being things you seem to say don't matter but which in fact do given that you opened the door for everything else do be discussed by saying THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE BOOK IS FALSE and that THE ENTIRE BOOK has statements that are USUALLY UNSUPPORTED BY THE HISTORICAL RECORD.

I'm going to go one further. I'll just admit that you are right on this one archaeological issue. So what? Since we've already shown that this issue you are focused on has no bearing whatsoever to all the other evidences at hand indicating that the premise of the book - that jewish ritual murder is an established fact - is correct. You are making a mole out of a mountain hill because that's all you can do in an attempt to discredit Leese. You are right about the archaeological issue. There. I said it. So what? You certainly haven't disproven all the cases of jewish ritual murder that Leese cites by this archaeological issue alone.

Even if Leese's misinterpretation of archaeological data is incorrect, he is correct on many other points and these points are more pretinent to the issue of jewish ritual murder being factual. GET BACK UNDER YOUR BRIDGE, TROLL!

You haven't read Leese, but you have a link to his book in your sig, you are spreading this false information that you have not even read. This is exactly why I think its worthwhile to attack this man. You dont even realize that you are spreading this bull****.

I may have 'before' or not. I have forgotten (admittedly) more than you'll ever know. Experienced more than you'd care to so I'd drop the diversion tactics with me. I owe no explanations either.

Weaving war is correct.

Some folks have a hell of a lot more important matters to deal with, read, or spend quantities of time on. I'm spread out thin enough. This present subject and the Jew question are/were studies started years ago by me, probably older than you are, merely because of my geography, experiencing, endeavors, and local politics.

You fail to answer the simplest basic profile questions whether they'd be a lie or not yet throw demands and expectations around. No-one out here knows you or has met you. You nit-pik then desire to throw the baby out with the wash-water if it's not the whole truth or expectations according to "warweaver." This subject is far from the priority of the day, my vocation or avocation, along with pleasing. It does not, would not, negate other facts or actions of the chosen anyway, yesterday or today. Including other information in Muadib's collection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by warweaver
the premise of the book is false. It is certainly not educational because it is misleading, incorrect, poorly referenced and sometimes outright deceptive.

The entire book is composed of statements, usually unsupported by the historical record, just like these. Yet, the author would have us believe that his book is, "fact."

After Googling some terms, here's an excerpt from the top link that directly contradicts your assertion about Macalister:

Quote:

In the stratum underlying the high place was a cemetery of infants buried in large jars. "That the sacrificed infants were the firstborn, devoted in the temple, is indicated by the fact that none were over a week old" (Macalister). In all the Semitic strata bones of children were also found in corners of the houses, the deposits being identical with infant burials in the high place; and examination showed that these were not stillborn children. At least some of the burials under the house thresholds and under the foundation of walls carry with them the mute proofs of this most gruesome practice. In one place the skeleton of an old woman was found in a corner where a hole had been left just large enough for this purpose. A youth of about 18 had been cut in two at the waist and only the upper part of his body deposited.

Houston, we have a problem. I've found where Macalister says, "all semitic strata." Its in volume 3 chapter X (around page 650 of a unified volume).

Apparently, after the high place had fallen into disrepair, a few die hards continued to practice an obscure bloody ritual whereby they would slaughter a child and bury it under the foundation of a new house ( to ward away evil spirits ). The practice is exceedingly rare, and becomes increasingly rare around the time of the Egyptian conquest, but it was being practiced.

I hate to have to point this out because I think the raw data tends to discredit the idea that Juden were slaughtering babies and burying them under their houses as a precaution against evil spirits.

Rare as with todays oral blood sucking circumcisions? More speculation I suppose and no fore-skins found in the strata.

I'm wondering. Is this the only piece of works your concerned about warweaver? Or should we just toss everything out including the mentioning of the Zionist/Jewish problem at all? Do you feel they should be allowed on SF besides the open forums?

Rare as with todays oral blood sucking circumcisions? More speculation I suppose and no fore-skins found in the strata.

I'm wondering. Is this the only piece of works your concerned about warweaver? Or should we just toss everything out including the mentioning of the Zionist/Jewish problem at all? Do you feel they should be allowed on SF besides the open forums?

Not sure what you want, I've already been humiliated enough. See, to me, it doesn't matter that these sacrifices were of a fundementally different nature. To me, it doesn't matter that Macalister notes that the foundation sacrifices appear to be prevalent in the 2nd and 3rd Semitic occupations and tapering off nearly completely by the middle of the 3rd during the Israelite invasion.

What matters is my assertion has been shown to be false. Even though it does not weaken my criticism of Leese, my credibility is badly shaken.

Take note, this is how a rational man recognizes facts.

I assure you, I will come back with an even stronger and more detailed critique of Leese.

Not sure what you want, I've already been humiliated enough. See, to me, it doesn't matter that these sacrifices were of a fundementally different nature. To me, it doesn't matter that Macalister notes that the foundation sacrifices appear to be prevalent in the 2nd and 3rd Semitic occupations and tapering off nearly completely by the middle of the 3rd during the Israelite invasion.

What matters is my assertion has been shown to be false. Even though it does not weaken my criticism of Leese, my credibility is badly shaken.

Take note, this is how a rational man recognizes facts.

I assure you, I will come back with an even stronger and more detailed critique of Leese.

You could focus on St. Simon of Trent just being a Gentile plot to defame Jews. I could really ridicule you then, so that might be a good idea, as I could have fun with that. But before you do, I'd recommend getting a free downloadable copy of my Interactive CD/program relating to this matter. Unzip it to a new folder and then click on the executable (file that ends with the extension ".exe" ). See this page for more info -http://www.honestmediatoday.com/prod05.htm